♪ melinda: hello and welcome to "quadriga." donald trump stunned the world last week with yet another decision that breaks with long-standing u.s. policy and with the positions of trust and american allies. within hours of his announcement the u.s. is formally recognizing jerusalem as israel's capital, u.s. flags were burning in the gaza strip. hamas, the islamist movement they controls gaza, said would open the gates of hell on u.s. interests in the region.

at a summit hosted by the turkish president this week, muslim leaders called on the world to officially recognized east jerusalem as the capital of palestine. "trump's jerusalem plan -- a capital mistake?" -- that's the question we want to discuss here with ouriga" today guests. it's a susan neiman pleasure to welcome -- it is a pleasure to welcome susan neiman back to the show, the director of the einsteinforum. she says this is a terrible decision which will only make the peace process heart appear the will to know it is not a decision supported by american jews, 75 percent of home are against it. alan posener is back with this. he is a commentator for the , and he says welt peace begins with the recognition of reality. he says most arabs do not recognize the existence of the

jewish state, so how can they talk about peace? also with us, akram baker, who ofls trump's decision an act diplomatic arson. he says trump is willing to sacrifice not only palestinians but also the remnants of credibility the u.s. has as an evenhanded arbiter. we know that president trump often sees foreign and domestic policy as 1 -- america first -- faced scathing criticism from many people at home in the u.s., including, as you pointed out in your opening statement, many jewish groups. the association of reform groups, the largest jewish groups in the u.s. who does like this decision? whom is it aimed at? susan: most people do not know this, and if i did not, i would suspect the lie that comes with the protocols of the arabs of scion that jews run the united

states, and that's why u.s. policy toward israel has been so one-sided -- protocols of the arabs of zion. the main people who support this are american evangelical christians, for a reason that will sound crazy looked at from the outside. believe in the apocalypse. they believe that armageddon has to happen in the middle east. they believe there has to be a gigantic war there, at the end of which the messiah will come and all the jews who have not converted will go to hell. this is actually a deeply anti-semitic group of people. i have met some of them. it is astonishing, but it is by no means a decision either of the majority of the jewish people or in our interests at all. arenda: in any event, those key voters for donald trump, part of his so-called base. susan: they are the only people

who are 100% behind him at this point. melinda: amongst those who condemn this decision in the two ofstates are also the last 11 ambassadors to israel. a number of them told the "new york times" that even if, as you degreehis does to some wreck -- represent a recognition of reality on the ground, it is very bad diplomacy and will make it much harder to get a lasting sustainable settlement on the middle east. alan: all these ambassadors must know -- because they were part of the process -- that there has been no lasting and sustainable region since 1948, so why this particular action, which simply constitutes a recognition of the facts on the make itshould somehow more difficult to achieve something which has not been achieved already beats me.

i think trump's speech -- he said on the one hand, we recognize jerusalem is the capital of israel, and on the other hand, this does not preclude any agreement on status ind so on and the future. it's perfectly possible, and we should aim at that instead of going over historical facts and myths again and again and say it's true, jerusalem is jerusalem's. what else could it be? could it become as erdogan has said, the capital of a palestinian state? what has to happen in that direction? you can open the gates of hell, have days of rage, go around killing people. everyone knows that will not solve the problem. melinda: i want to go back to the question of how much this decision from the u.s. might preclude or not, but let's pick up on the question of if we are going to see days of rage. you said that trump is

essentially sacrificing the palestinians, but despite the , it has been relatively quiet so far. why is that? could it be that palestinians themselves say this amounts to recognition of facts on the ground? akram: everyone knows israel has been occupied jerusalem since 1967. that is the fact on the ground, so we should recognize that. the call for days of rage is nothing but the limit. at the same time, 5000 palestinians have been wounded and four killed in the past few days -- or should we say for the past week. i want to call that a little bit of a problem. i would call that four palestinians killed by israel and 1500 wounded. i do not know what you call a big conflagration. the fact that anything that will come out of this is going to come from the street, from the palestinian people themselves, not from hamas leadership nor

mahmoud abbas. melinda: let's dig deeper and begin with president trump's announcement himself. as he made that announcement of the super six, he expressed confidence that his decision would reactivate the dormant peace process. let's listen. trump: it is time to officially recognize jerusalem as the capital of israel. presidents have made this a major campaign promise, they failed to deliver. today, i am delivering. i have judged this course of action to be in the best united stateshe of america and the pursuit of peace between isrsrl and the palestinians. >> i believe that all or most of the european countries will move their embassies to jerusalem,

recognize jerusalem as israel's capital. melinda: donald trump actually does seem to take peace in the middle east as seriously as he takes anything else. trustedut his most advisor, his son-in-law, on this. he has made a lot of statements about it. is it really absolutely out of the question that this shock could somehow joel a very armant peace process -- jolt very dormant peace process? susan: yes, i think it is absolutely out of the question. i cannot even call this a diplomatic decision. a diplomatic decision might have , "i will do this if you will absolutely stop urther occupied settlements." if one could have believed such a promise from netanyahu is a different thing because his promises have been made and

broken before, but something symbolic in return for this recognition, he got absolutely nothing. the fact that he left it open that something else might happen later -- jerusalem is the most symbolic issue in the whole peace process, so all l of these things are s symbolic, you know facts on theut ground. it is about what these things mean symbolically, and the fact that jerusalem was left as the last thing that should be dealt one hader hopefully other moves toward peace is something that he seems to have no clue. jared kushner -- i mean, the people he has appointed as part of his so-called peace initiative from his son-in-law to his ambassador are about the least informed and most prejudiced people he could put there, so, no, i do not believe him for a second. the other thing that has been

pointed out about that picture we just saw that is really important -- look at the iconography of that picture. he is surroundeded by a christms tree, and he has mike pence, his tie to the given jellico base, in the background. there's nothing jewish about this. there is nothing peaceful about this. he has made a deal of saying we can say merry christmas again. this is a christmas present to the evangelicals. visa that weave a will show in a minute, but netanyahu -- we heard him there -- he came to europe to make his case for the europeans to follow in the u.s.'s footsteps, and he was roundly rebuffed. -- we have a piece we will show in a minute. the u.s. has isolated itself once again. doesn't that make it harder for jared kushner to do his job of getting peace in the middle east? alan: jared kushner was never going to succeed anyway. i agree with what susan said. come on, donald trump going to

create peace in the middle east? no, not even jesus could do it. he failed miserably. that is not going to happen. europe, ime back to am by no means sure that no european embassies will be moved to jerusalem. i think behind jerian's might. might, if onlyes to snub the germans. -- i think the hungarians might. political agenda. so do the hunk arians. so do the poles. so the czechs. -- so do the hunk arians. this is the tragedy of the middle east. hungarians.n

this is the tragedy of the middle east. everyone is cooking their own pot of stew. i would be very surprised if no one follows the steps of the united states. occupier andis an an occupied. the one party that can make a difference, who can actually end his conflict tomorrow, by ending palestine, ison, not doing it. all they are doing is perpetuating the occupation. they have been doing it on an accelerated basis ever since the modern peace process started in madrid in 1991. what trump is doing -- trump does not care -- i completely he does notlan -- care about israel. jared kushner is a supporter of settlements. he has given donations to right-wing illegal settlements. we are really going to trust this guy? the fact is trump is playing to his base, def leppard from his -- deflect from his thomistic

problems -- deflect from his domestic problems. melinda: i want to ask about euro later on, but let me ask about the arab states' role in all of this. the u.s. has that taken itself out of the game, out of the ability to be an evenhanded arbiter. it seems many states would agree with you. they said in turkey that they think the whole thing should be put in the u.n.'s hands, that the u.s. essentially is not qualified anymore. on the other hand, we have seen the u.s. recently cozying up to saudi arabia, and we have seen, interestingly enough, a androchement between israel a number of moderate arab states, including also saudi arabia. looking just at rialto teak -- arepolitik, how important the palestinians? are they perfectly ready to sacrifice palestinian interests

for the sake of a broad front against iran? akram: i can say that very easily. arab leaders, especially the once supported by the west, have absolutely no love for palestinians or palestine. the same ones supported by the chinese and the russians. the same thing goes for them. talking about the leadership, however, the people of the arab world and the people of the islamic world, a high number of christians care very deeply about the palestinians and very deeply about jerusalem. between saudi arabia and the united states -- they are one and the same. susan: i wonder why we are calling saudi arabia a moderate state, when it is the most reactionary of all of the arab countries. akram: exactly. melinda: do you think this move do you thinkmp --

that this could cool off that putting friendship -- abutting betweenng friendship donald trump his sword-dancing hosts? susan: i have no idea what they say in private. i agree that the interest of the palestinians has always come last on these leaders' plates, so i don't know. i really do want to say something, though, because you did not identify me in the beginning. i am not just a jew. i am also a citizen of the state of israel where i lived for five years and was professor at tel aviv university. i am saying this as someone who not only knows something about the middle east but as someone who is committed to being a jew

and committed toto there being a just peace and the existence of the state of israel, but i am a jew who goeses back to the p prs -- back toand committed to thera the prophets and thinks about universal justice, which has been sorely missing in the state of israel for a long time. melinda: thank you very much. israel's claims to jerusalem also goes back to the time of the profits -- the prophets. there are multiple claims to the city of jerusalem. the united nations said this week that it and by its position that the status of jerusalem must be determined through a comprehensive solution negotiated between the two sides. united nations resolutions going back decades aim to resolve the competing claims to jerusalem. >> jerusalem is a holy city for three world religions. the jews have the wailing wall here. muslims, the dome of the rock. christians, the church of the holy sepulcher.

these sites are only a few hundred meters, and yet worlds, apart. the city's current status is the consequent of the six-day war in 1967 when israel occupied the city's eastern part and in 1980 and in it. -- annexed it. both israelis and palestinians claim jerusalem as their capital. the international community has refrained from taking a clear position. no country has opened an embassy .nd jerusalem -- so far who can lay claim to jerusalem? the united nations declaration this week reiterated what the u.n. has said for decades, mainly that jerusalem is a final status issue. by that, they mean it is a matter to be decided at the end of negotiations, rather than

before they have actually gotten under way. rather an odd move by the great dealmaker? as susan said in the program earlier, is giving away the very thing that might be able to extract concessions from israel at the very outset? alan: first, donald trump is not the great dealmaker. second, he is not giving anything away because jerusalem has been the capital of israel since 1950. everyone who has ever gone to israel, every head of state, including arab heads of state, including sadat when he came on his historic mission to forge peace, a piece which has lasted to the current day, by the way, he spoke in jerusalem. question that this is the capital, and if there ever was a question, that will

be decided by history. on that bem can be also the capital of the palestinian state, that is something which indeed should and must remain open for the reasons that you stated -- if jerusalem can beyond that also the capital of the palestinian state. the palestinians have a right to a state of their own and a right to a capital city, and why should it not be in jerusalem? this whole question -- it has nothing to do with donald trump -- as i say, not the great dealmaker -- did. what he did was say, "let's not pretend that i have anything to give away. let's not pretend it will ever be in question that israel's capital is jerusalem. let's get on to the real issues." i think he is right. he may not see them in the same light to do, but he is right. taking the latter one

first, the trump administration does say that it's decision does not necessarily predetermined final borders or its status. could the eastern part of the city still become the capital of a palestinian state, or would you say that that is at least in reality no longer possible? the problem is east jerusalem is being strangled by israel this entire time. strangled off of settlements, circled. east jerusalem residents are being kicked out, not allowed into their home. trump saying at some point in the future, maybe a palestinian state -- if he wanted to do something, he could have said west jerusalem as the capital of israel and east jerusalem will be the capital of the future palestinian state, and i would have said, well, you know what, that is an interesting thing. that is acceptable. this whole reality, the fact is that might does not make right,

and kuwait is not the 19th province, either, and we went to war for that a few yearsrs ago. melinda: let me pick up on that because that was the first point and essentially the long argument about facts on the ground versus law. susan outed herself a moment ago. i will out myself, too -- i studied law and my first legal they for harvard law was on status of jerusalem because it had just been annexed officially by israel. i say with some pain, the fact is international law is also recognized more in the breach than anywhere else, so does it matter? susan: yeah, it does matter because jerusalem is the most symbolic piece of the conflict. i've got a lot of lawyers and my family, too.

i did not become one, but they were good lawyers, so i respect them. in fact, my uncle is a profefesr of international law at harvard. much the things that international lawyers can do. i understand that it's fairly little, but what we have now is no functioning international law . my own preference would be that jerusalem the an international city. an international city. it is of great significance to three religions. how one gets to that is something i do not want to discuss, but it makes a gigantic symbolic difference. if he had said two capitals for two peoples, who would have agreed? it is not my preferred situation, but he did not do that. melinda: we have just a few minutes remaining, so let me ask

all of you to address the two-state solution. palestinian leader's saying this is a death knell for the palestinian -- this is a death knell -- we heard palestinian leaders saying this is a death knell for the two-state solution. the two-state solution has to happen because it is the only solution which gives palestinians at least part of what they want and enables israel to remain as the jewish and democratic state in the since it is the home of the jewish people, not in the sense that it is a religious state, not unlike iran, which is an islamic state. interesting that the one state which refuses the two-state solution is iran itself because everyone thinks if we had one state, palestine, the jews would be marginalized. they would be a minority, and we would have a situation like in lebanon or syria or so on. that is what they want, so it's obvious the two-state solution

has to happen. , if mr. trumpins says jerusalem -- recognizes jerusalem as the capital of israel or not, it is one -- if anyone recognizes it or not. it will not happen tomorrow. it will not happen in a year. it will not happen in five years. melinda: is a palestinian state still feasible, given the patchwork of settlements, or is it more likely the palestinians say they want equal rights in one state? akram: i think israel has very much succeeded in killing the two-state solution. i, for one, truly believe in the one state solution because i believe in democracy. i believe in a modern, western, liberal democracy where a country's foreign citizens, if they are june, muslim, christian, or atheist. where there is one man and one

vote. if israel claims to be a democracy, then fine, let everybody lived where they want to live. we can all share and make one hell of a country together, but israel does not want that. it says it wants a two state solution, yet it builds settlements everywhere and precludes it. agree.i my friends on the ground in israel and palestine and sameely working have the view -- i mean actively working for a just, peaceful and to occupation. to occupation. there is no land left on which to build what would be a andrent piece -- peace independent state. i do not see that the state of

israel is moving in any direction melinda: that would help that. thank you -- any direction that would help that. melinda: thank you to all of you for joining us today. thank you to you out

crickets crping]